On 2024-10-16 17:42, Morten Brørup wrote:
From: David Marchand [mailto:david.march...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 October 2024 17.37
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 4:14 PM Mattias Rönnblom
<hof...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
On 2024-10-16 13:38, David Marchand wrote:
For a reason similar to the change on bitops header, hide bitset
implementation relying on experimental API.
Fixes: 99a1197647d8 ("eal: add bitset type")
Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
---
lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h | 123
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 123 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
index 74c643a72a..8ae8425fc2 100644
--- a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
+++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
@@ -255,7 +255,13 @@ __rte_experimental
static inline bool
rte_bitset_test(const uint64_t *bitset, size_t bit_num)
{
+#ifdef ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
return __RTE_BITSET_DELEGATE(rte_bit_test, bitset, bit_num);
+#else
+ RTE_SET_USED(bitset);
+ RTE_SET_USED(bit_num);
+ return false;
This is no RTE_VERIFY(0) here, because this is just dummy code, that
will never be run. Is that correct?
Adding a RTE_VERIFY(false) is an interesting idea.
It is not supposed to be run, indeed.
Great idea.
Do you prefer I respin with this?
No need.
Instead, create a ticket in Bugzilla so RTE_VERIFY(false) goes in everywhere
there is dummy code, not just here.
No experimental function is supposed to be invoked, if
ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API is not set, right? So RTE_VERIFY(), or its
compile-time equivalent, should be in every such function, not just the
broken ones.
--
David Marchand
